State attorney Kevin Wallace concluded his direct examination of the New York attorney general's second and final rebuttal witness amid frequent objections by defense lawyers.

Lewis attempted to explain how Donald Trump's statements of financial condition failed to disclose that he did not conduct a discounted cash flow analysis, contributing to the over-valuation of some of his assets.

"There is no mention of discounting or future value in the disclosure," Lewis said, disagreeing with testimony from defense expert Jason Flemmons -- as well as former Mazars USA accountant Donald Bender, who testified as a state witness.

“Are you impeaching your own witness?” Engoron asked state attorneys regarding whether Bender’s testimony should no longer be considered credible.

"We didn't feel the need to," Wallace responded.

Lewis also suggested that Trump's external accountants at Mazars had less of an obligation to highlight issues that Flemmons suggested, since they were only conducting a compilation report rather than a more intensive audit. While Mazars had an obligation to flag obvious issues, they were not responsible for ensuring Trump's statements were compliant with generally accepted accounting principles, he testified.

"If while doing the compilation ... something comes to the attention of the accounts that could be a GAAP departure, they have a responsibility to bring that issue to the client," Lewis said regarding generally accepted accounting principles.

During the hour-long direct examination, defense lawyers objected at least 14 times, successfully interrupting the line of questions.

"I am lost," Engoron asked at one point. "Can you put this together?"

The parade of objections visibly irritating Wallace, who voiced his displeasure.

"Petulant outbursts don't really play well in the courtroom," quipped Trump lawyer Chris Kise in response.

In a post on social media, Donald Trump dismissed the idea that his civil fraud trial might result in a settlement.

"HE RULED THAT I WAS A FRAUD BEFORE HE EVEN SAW THE CASE, THEN TRIED TO GET ME TO SETTLE. A TOTAL HIT JOB," Trump wrote about Judge Arthur Engoron.

Engoron has not addressed the possibility in court, but sounded sentimental this morning as he began what is likely to be the final day of the trial.

"In a strange way, I am going to miss this trial," Engoron said. "It has been an experience."

A day after Donald Trump's lawyers rested their defense case that featured numerous expert witnesses, New York Attorney General Letitia James is set to call her own accounting expert as part of the state's rebuttal case.

Cornell professor Eric Lewis was qualified as an accounting expert over the objections of Trump's attorneys yesterday, and his direct examination is scheduled to begin this morning.

Lewis will likely address some of the findings reached by the defense's accounting experts, Jason Flemmons and Eli Bartov, whose testimony that Trump had adequate disclaimers on his financial statements is at the center of the defense's case.

Trump's lawyer Chris Kise aggressively criticized Lewis' qualifications during a lengthy voir dire session yesterday, but Judge Arthur Engoron remained convinced about Lewis' ability to testify as an accounting expert.

Donald Trump's attorney Chris Kise unloaded on the second rebuttal witness called by New York Attorney General Letitia James after the defense had rested its case.

"The reason they brought this witness in here is, there is no one in the actual profession who would sustain the opinions they are asking of the witness," Kise argued about Cornell professor of practice Eric Lewis, who Judge Engoron qualified as an expert in accounting.

Kise exasperatedly questioned Lewis during a prolonged voir dire about his qualifications, criticizing his experience while knocking Engoron in the process.

"You are a professor of practice with no practice in the field of accounting," Kise told Lewis. "I probably have more experience in the practice of accounting than this witness."

Engoron nevertheless deemed Lewis an expert in accounting over Kise's objections that his expertise was "too broad" for the circumstances.

"I am not sure if anything will change a decision in this courtroom," Kise argued.

Engoron appeared worn out by Kise's lengthy attacks.

"Stop making speeches every time we have to discuss something," Engoron said for the umpteenth time.

Court was subsequently adjourned for the day, with the state's rebuttal case set to resume on Wednesday.

The buck stopped at Donald Trump, and the court should hold him responsible for his company's actions, according to state attorney Andrew Amer.

"The buck stopped with him, so he was responsible for all the conduct I just reviewed," Amer said about Trump's conduct between 2011 and 2015, before his sons took over the company when Trump won the White House.

Though defense attorneys have repeatedly criticized the testimony of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, Amer highlighted that Trump's lawyers never questioned the former president about his testimony that Trump instructed Cohen and then-CEO Allen Weisselberg to "reverse engineer" his financial statement to increase his net worth.

"Based on their decision not to question Mr. Trump on this critical point, the court should infer that the reverse engineering instructions were given by Mr. Trump, just as Mr. Cohen described," Amer said.

Amer also highlighted what he said was Eric Trump's inconsistent testimony about his knowledge of his father's statement of financial condition.

"He went to great lengths to conceal from this court that he was fully aware that his father had a personal financial statement," Amer said, claiming that Eric Trump and his brother Donald Trump Jr. "approved of and perpetuated those schemes with the intent to defraud."

Judge Engoron, however, appeared skeptical of Amer's argument about Trump's adult sons -- particularly Donald Trump Jr. -- and interrupted the summation to question Amer.

"What evidence do you have -- I just haven't seen it -- that they knew there was fraud?" Engoron said.

Amer responded that the sons should have known about the fraud given their role in the company, and that their inaction amounted to "sticking their heads in the sand."

"They can't say they didn't bother paying attention to it. That is just not a defense," Amer contended.